1. Restraint urged on Afghan visas
2. Mexico says outflow drops
3. AL defends immigration law
4. Gay couple loses immigration fight
5. Groups criticize Secure Communities change

1.
US ambassador urged restraint on Afghan visas
By Heidi Vogt
The Associated Press, August 9, 2011

Ahmad Taki is desperate to get out of Afghanistan, fearing for his life after receiving death threats in midnight phone calls because he works for the Americans. Nine months after applying for a visa to the U.S. designed for cases like his, he's heard nothing and feels abandoned by the people for whom he's risked his life.

Taki is one of about 2,300 Afghans who have applied to a special program that awards U.S. visas to Afghans who have worked for the U.S. government for at least a year and are in danger because of this work.

But since the Afghan Allies program began in 2009, not a single visa has been handed out.

A document obtained by The Associated Press suggests the delays may not be a matter of bureaucracy, but reflect a worry among U.S. officials over holding on to hard-to-replace employees.

"This act could drain this country of our very best civilian and military partners: our Afghan employees," former Ambassador Karl Eikenberry wrote in a February 2010 cable to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"If we are not careful the SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) program will have a significant deleterious impact on staffing and morale, as well as undermining our overall mission in Afghanistan. Local staff are not easily replenished in a society at 28 percent literacy," wrote Eikenberry, who finished his tour in July.

Eikenberry said the strictest criteria should be applied to determine if employees are in danger. He also proposed changing the Afghan Allies legislation so its visas are only issued "in those rare instances where there is clear and convincing evidence of a serious threat." That's more limited that the "ongoing serious threat" stated in the current law.
. . .
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hO82QneaOboc7KTKb4onTU...

********
********

2.
Mexico says immigration outflow drops to “almost nothing”
The Associated Press, August 8, 2011

Mexico’s net outflow of migrants has fallen to “almost nothing,” as fewer migrants entered Mexico, but the number leaving dropped even faster, the government’s statistical unit said Monday.

A report by the National Statistics Institute says Mexico lost about 0.09 percent of its population to migration as reflected in quarterly surveys carried out between March 2010 and March 2011.

That was 83 percent lower than the outflow of 0.53 percent of the population in 2006 and early 2007, near the end of Mexico’s migration boom.

“In the first quarter of 2011, there was practically no net loss of population due to international migration,” the institute said. “As a result, in relative terms the net migration balance was almost nothing.”

About 0.38 percent of the country’s 112.7 million people migrated abroad in the most recent period studied, while about 0.29 percent immigrated to Mexico.

That was down from the 2006-2007 period, when almost 1 percent of the population left in a year, and about 0.46 of the population were newly arrived migrants from elsewhere.

The comparisons are based on preliminary figures from the quarterly National Employment and Occupation survey.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/mexico-says-immigration-out...

********
********

3.
State asks judge not to block new immigration law
The Associated Press, August 8, 2011

State officials have asked a federal judge to let Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration to take effect as scheduled on Sept. 1.

The state filed an official response Friday to the three federal lawsuits that seek to stop all or parts of the new law. Opponents and supporters have called the new law the toughest in the country.

The three lawsuits were filed by the Obama administration, a coalition of Alabama civil rights groups and by state religious leaders. They have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn, who has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 24 in Birmingham on a request that she block the new law from taking effect.

The Birmingham News reported on the response on Monday. It was prepared by attorneys for Gov. Robert Bentley and other state officials and rejects claims from plaintiffs that the new law discriminates on the basis of race, color or national origin.

The lawsuit filed by the Obama administration claims that the Alabama law deals with issues that are the responsibility of the federal government.

But in the response, state officials say the law was written to work alongside federal statutes and that some of the language is identical to that in federal immigration law.

The filing by state officials says the Alabama law "in no way determines who should or should not be admitted into the country. On the contrary, the law defers to federal categories of immigration status and the federal government's determination of any particular alien's immigration status."
. . .
http://www.necn.com/08/08/11/State-asks-judge-not-to-block-new-immigr/la...

********
********

4.
S.F. gay married couple loses immigration battle
By Carolyn Lochhead
San Francisco Chronicle, August 9, 2011

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.

Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk's application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples.

The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems.

"I'm married just like any other married person in this country," Wells said. "At this point, the government can come in and take my husband and deport him. It's infuriating. It's upsetting. I have no power, no right to keep my husband in this country. I love this country, I live here, I pay taxes and I have no right to share my home with the person I married."

Husband's pleas

Wells pleaded with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama to intervene.

"Anyone can identify with the horror of having the government come in and destroy your family when you've done nothing wrong, and you've done everything right, followed every law," Wells said.

The agency's decision cited the Defense of Marriage Act as the reason for the denial of an I-130 visa, or spousal petition that could allow Makk to apply for permanent U.S. residency. "The claimed relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary is not a petitionable relationship," the decision said. "For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, one partner must be a man and the other a woman."
. . .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/08/BAO71KKPEC.D...

********
********

5.
Federal immigration-check requirement draws ire
By Alan Gomez
USA Today, August 9, 2011

Civil rights groups are considering a lawsuit to try to block the federal government from requiring all police agencies to screen people booked into local jails for immigration violations.

The Department of Homeland Security on Friday announced that local police agencies could not opt out of a program known as Secure Communities, which started in 2008, is now active in 1,300 local jurisdictions and is scheduled to be in place nationwide by 2013.

On Monday, civil rights groups said they were reviewing the decision to see why states such as Illinois and New York— where governors recently sent letters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requesting to get out of the program — are now being told that they have no choice.

"ICE and the federal government don't get to rule by decree," said B. Loewe, a spokesman for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. He said his group is considering a lawsuit to try to block the program.

For decades, police agencies have sent the fingerprints of people booked into their jails to the FBI to check for criminal records. Under Secure Communities, those fingerprints are also shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check for immigration violations.

Secure Communities differs from controversial laws being pursued by several states, including Arizona, that would empower local police to investigate the immigration status of suspects before they are booked into jails.

Forty-one states had signed contracts with ICE to participate in the Secure Communities program. But in recent months, Gov. Pat Quinn, D-Ill., and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., sent letters to ICE saying they were opting out. The governors said people with no criminal record were being unfairly targeted, and the threat of deportation was eroding public trust in law enforcement.
. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-08-civil-rights-lawsuit-immi...

********
********